SHRI SUKUMAR GHOSH(IN 168/82), MUKUNDA MOHAN(IN 189/82, BRAJA GOPAL MUKHERJEE(IN 8/83) AND BHUPENDRA CHAND(IN 1080/85) Vs. THE STATE OF TRIPURA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this common judgment and order we propose to dispose of 4 (four) writ petitions which were registered as Civil Rule Nos. 168, 189/82, 8/83 and 1080/85.

(2.) In Civil Rule 168/82 the petitioner was promoted to the post of Sub-Inspector of police in the year 1965; petitioner in writ petition 189/82 was promoted on 31.8.70; petitioner in Civil Rule 1/83 was promoted on 31.8.70; and 13 petitioners in Civil Rule No. 1080/85 were promoted during the period from 1973 to 1976. On 6.12.62 the then Chief Commissioner of the Union Territory of Tripura framed a set of rules under Art. 309 of the Constitution for recruitment for the post of Police (Armed and un-Armed) (vide Annexure-1 to the writ petition in Civil Rule No. 168/82). According to said rule the method of recruitment to the said post of Inspector of Police was by promotion failing which by transfer/deputation and qualifications laid down for promotion was 3 years of service in the grade of Sub-Inspector of Police. By the North-Eastern Areas (Reorganisation) Act, 1971 on and from 21.1.1972 the new State of Tripura was established comprising the territories which were comprised in the Union Territory of Tripura. On 12.2.81 the Government of Tripura framed revised rules under Art. 309 of the Constitution regarding the method of recruitment and the qualifications necessary for appointment to the post of Inspector of Police and according to the said Rules the method of recruitment was by promotion failing which by transfer/-deputation and the qualification for promotion was 8 years in the grade of Sub-Inspector of Police and 'having passed pre-promotion examination as prescribed by the State Government and to be conducted by the Tripura Police Organisation/West Bengal Police Directorate'. The present petitioners have not been promoted to the post of Inspector of Police mainly on the ground that they have not appeared/passed the pre-promotion examination as laid down in the revised rules of 1981 though other Sub-Inspectors of Police who were similarly situated or who were junior have been promoted. Being aggrieved the petitioners have approached to this Court for appropriate writ/directions.

(3.) The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that the revised rules of 1981 could not be made applicable to the present petitioners as they acquired a vested right to be considered for promotion after putting in 3 years of service as Sub-Inspector of police under the Rules of 1962. It has also been urged that conditions of passing pre-promotion examination cannot be made applicable to the present petitioners as it was not a condition for promotion under 1961 Rules. Mr. Barman Roy, learned Advocate General has submitted that under Art. 309 of the Constitution the State Government is competent to frame rules giving retrospective effect and as such Rules of 1981 are applicable to the present petitioners. According to Mr. Barman Roy passing of pre-promotion examination is not a condition of service and as such no vested right of the petitioners have been taken away by the aforesaid Rules of 1981.